Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/13] drm/i915: rewrite shmem_pwrite_slow touse copy_from_user

[Daniel Vetter]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 09:56:32PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
[snip the patch]
> Bikeshed, but I would much prefer a #define for the swizzle
> bit/cacheline size.

I've looked at this stuff way too long, so I'm biased, but 64 = cacheline
= dram fetch size = 1 << 64 feels about as natural for me as 4096 =
PAGE_SIZE ...

[snip the patch]

> I must be missing something obvious here...
> Can you explain how this can possibly be considered safe without holding
> struct_mutex?

That's the reason why the commit msg goes through every case and explains
why I think it's safe. The large thing here is that we need to drop the
mutex when calling copy_*_user (at least in the non-atomic slow-paths)
because otherwise we might deadlock with our own pagefault handler.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel@xxxxxxxx
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/